National Forest System Land Management Planning Directives, 5124-5153 [06-804]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5124-5153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-804]



[[Page 5123]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Agriculture





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Forest Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Forest System Land Management Planning Directives; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 31, 2006 / 
Notices

[[Page 5124]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

RIN 0596-AC02


National Forest System Land Management Planning Directives

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of agency final directives.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is issuing ten (10) final directives to 
Forest Service Manuals 1900 and 1920 and Forest Service Handbook 
1909.12; chapters zero code, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 80. These 
directives establish procedures and responsibilities for implementing 
national forest land management planning regulations at 36 CFR part 
219, subpart A, published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2005 
(70 FR 1023). These directives provide consistent overall guidance to 
Forest Service line officers and employees in developing, amending, or 
revising land management plans for units of the National Forest System.

DATES: These directives are effective January 31, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the directives are available on the World Wide 
Web/Internet at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index or on a compact 
disc (CD). Copies of the directives on a CD can be obtained by 
contacting Regis Terney by e-mail (rterney@fs.fed.us), by phone at 1-
866-235-6652 or 202-205-0895, or by mail at Regis Terney, USDA Forest 
Service, Mailstop 1104, EMC, 3 Central, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20050-1104.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regis Terney, Planning Specialist, 
Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff (202) 205-0895.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 5, 2005, the Department adopted final planning 
regulations for the National Forest System (NFS) at 36 CFR Part 219, 
subpart A (70 FR 1023) (also referred to as the 2005 planning rule). 
The 2005 planning rule provides broad programmatic direction in 
developing and carrying out land management planning. The rule 
explicitly directs the Chief of the Forest Service to establish 
planning procedures in the Forest Service directives system (36 CFR 
219.1(c)).
    The Forest Service directives consist of the Forest Service Manual 
(FSM) and the Forest Service Handbook (FSH), which contain the agency's 
policies, practices, and procedures and serve as the primary basis for 
the internal management and control of programs and administrative 
direction to Forest Service employees. The directives for all agency 
programs are set out on the World Wide Web/Internet at https://
www.fs.fed.us/im/directives.
    Generally, the FSM contains legal authorities, objectives, 
policies, responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on a 
continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff to 
plan and execute programs and activities, while the FSH is generally 
the principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for 
carrying out the policies, objectives, and responsibilities contained 
in the FSM.

Need for Direction

    Procedural and technical details associated with implementing the 
2005 planning rule are needed by NFS units to begin consistent plan 
amendments or revisions across all NFS units to prevent confusion and 
to improve public involvement and decisionmaking associated with 
developing, amending, or revising a land management plan.

Public Participation

    On March 23, 2005, the Forest Service issued 12 interim directives 
to FSM 1330, 1900, and 1920 and FSH 1909.12 asking for public comment. 
This notice of issuance involves final amendments for those interim 
directives, except for FSM 1330 and FSH 1909.12, chapters 70 and 90. 
FSM 1330 and FSH 1909.12, chapters 70 and 90 will be issued separately.
    Comments were submitted by mail, facsimile, and electronically. 
During the 90-day comment period (ending on June 21, 2005), the agency 
received 365 original responses and 8,727 copies of one form letter. 
These responses were analyzed by the Content Analysis Group and 
documented in a Content Analysis Report. Of the 365 original responses, 
the Forest Service received responses from 324 individuals and 41 
organizations, of which 150 were letters, 214 were forms of various 
types, and 1 resolution. The Forest Service received responses from 49 
states as well as from the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Army Post 
Office/Fleet Post Office, and foreign nations.

Response to Comments

Overview

    In response to comments, the Forest Service made substantive 
changes to the interim directives issued on March 23, 2005, by 
decreasing the length approximately 25 percent and reorganizing the 
text. This was accomplished primarily by:
    1. Reviewing direction to remove redundancies.
    2. Questioning the need for the direction.
    3. Discussing major topics once.
    4. Using more cross-referencing.
    5. Removing detailed exhibits from the final directives and 
placing, at a later date, more useful exhibits in technical guides on 
the Technical Information for Planning Site (TIPS) Web site at https://
www.fs.fed.us/TIPS.
    6. Moving detail about plan components, planning process, 
monitoring, sustainability, and science from FSM 1920 to the Forest 
Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12.
    7. Moving all information about the objections process from FSM 
1926 of the interim directives to FSH 1909.12, chapter 50.
    In addition, the Forest Service moved the previous content of FSM 
1922 to FSM 1926. Forest Service Manual 1926 now provides procedures to 
revise or amend plans using provisions of the planning regulations in 
effect before November 9, 2000 (1982 planning rule) for those 
Responsible Officials that choose to continue using those procedures in 
accord with 36 CFR 219.14. The Forest Service moved FSM 1922 because 
many readers confused the procedures for the 2005 planning rule with 
the procedures for using the 1982 planning rule.

Key Issues

Decisionmaking Process
Laws
    Comment: The Forest Service should comply with all applicable laws 
and with Executive Order 13352.
    Response: Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1901.1 identifies the laws 
setting forth the requirements for Forest Service planning, while other 
applicable authorities are discussed at FSM 1011. In addition, 
Responsible Officials are required to comply with applicable laws in 
development, revision, amendment, and implementation of plans (70 FR 
1034, Jan. 5, 2005).
    Executive Order (E.O.) 13352 provides that specific Federal 
agencies, including the USDA, should implement laws relating to the 
environment and natural resources in a manner that promotes cooperative 
conservation and emphasizes local participation in Federal 
decisionmaking. The public participation requirements from the 2005 
planning rule (36 CFR 219.9) and the directives (FSM 1921.61 and FSH 
1909.12, sec. 30) ensure that the interested public, state agencies, 
and local governments have the opportunity to participate. The Forest 
Service

[[Page 5125]]

believes that the 2005 planning rule and the Forest Service directives 
are consistent with E.O. 13352.
State Participation
    Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that states play a 
meaningful role in the planning process. This should include 
encouraging states to establish a state governing body, chartered by 
that state, with the authority to create general forest policies and 
produce a state guidance document for the management of Federal 
forestlands. This could define a state's position on the niche that 
Federal forestlands play in the state, clarify state expectations, and 
build support for Federal land management plans with State and local 
constituents.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees that states should play a 
meaningful role in the planning process, including a role in defining 
the niche that National Forest System lands play in each state. The 
2005 planning rule (36 CFR 219.9) and directives (FSM 1921.61) 
encourage that role. The Responsible Officials will work with state 
officials to jointly agree on the type and amount of participation. The 
Forest Service does not believe that a specific approach to state 
involvement should be identified in the directives because the state 
should decide what specific approach may be appropriate for them.
Cooperating Agency
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide local and state agencies 
the option of cooperating agency status for developing amendments or 
plan revisions.
    Response: Under Council on Environmental Quality regulations for 
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); 
cooperating agency status is appropriate for other Federal, State, or 
local governments when they have jurisdiction by law or special 
knowledge about the action being addressed in a NEPA analysis (40 CFR 
1501.6). When other Federal, State, or local governments have 
jurisdiction by law or special knowledge about the action being 
addressed, the Responsible Official is encouraged to work with other 
State and local governments to determine if cooperating agency status 
is the most appropriate way for them to be involved. State and local 
governments contacted when the Forest Service is preparing a plan, plan 
amendment or plan revision are encouraged to identify their special 
expertise and/or jurisdiction by law to assist the local Responsible 
Official in determining appropriate designations as cooperating 
agencies. The Forest Service believes that the local Responsible 
Official is most able to determine how to involve state and local 
governments.
Governor's Consistency Review
    Comment: The Forest Service should add language to the FSM and 
create a process for state review of land management plans similar to 
the Governor's Consistency Review statutes created under the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).
    Response: The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) does 
not have a requirement equivalent to the FLPMA requirement for a 
governor's consistency review. The Forest Service believes that the 
collaborative processes in the 2005 planning rule and the Forest 
Service directives, along with the potential for cooperating agency 
status when the Responsible Official and a state concludes this to be 
appropriate, will provide for meaningful State involvement in the 
planning process. The Forest Service believes that early state 
involvement, such as identifying a need for change and developing plan 
components, will be more beneficial to the Forest Service and the 
states than will a consistency review late in the planning process. 
States will also be invited to comment on proposed plans during the 90-
day comment period.
National Association of State Foresters
    Comment: The Forest Service should coordinate with the National 
Association of State Foresters on planning, monitoring, and 
assessments.
    Response: The Forest Service encourages the National Association of 
State Foresters to participate in Forest Service planning at all 
levels.
Comment Period
    Comment: The Forest Service should add 60 days to the comment 
period.
    Response: In past planning efforts, a 90-day public comment period 
on a proposed plan or plan revision has proved adequate. Historically, 
the Forest Service has extended comment periods where circumstances 
about a specific planning effort have merited an extension. The 2005 
planning rule does not preclude extending the comment period when 
needed.
Framework of Directives
Need for Regulations
    Comment: The Forest Service should address NFMA's requirement in 
the Code of Federal Regulations and not in the Forest Service 
Directives System.
    Response: The Forest Service interprets NFMA to afford the Forest 
Service discretion to provide policy guidance through regulations or 
the Forest Service directives. Final regulations for implementing the 
NFMA were published in the Federal Register, January 5, 2005 (70 FR 
1022). Those regulations provide that guidance in addition to that 
provided in the regulations will be provided in the directives. 
Directives are available at https://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives.
Requirements and Content
    Comment: The Forest Service should have standards rather than weak 
guidelines, which allow too much discretion.
    Response: The decision to use guidelines rather than standards was 
made in the 2005 planning rule because the standards, as used 
previously in land management plans, proved too restrictive. The 
directives provide clarification about how guidelines should be written 
(FSH 1909.12, sec. 11.3). The Forest Service believes that guidelines 
will provide the necessary sideboards for designing projects and 
authorizing activities, while allowing line officers needed discretion 
to address site-specific situations.
    Comment: The Forest Service should create directives that are 
inclusive of all direction needed by the planners rather than awaiting 
white papers or technical guides.
    Response: The directives strive to provide the guidance needed to 
develop, revise, and amend plans. However, specific methods and 
analytical tools based on new information and changing technologies are 
expected to develop rapidly as the Forest Service gains experience 
carrying out the new planning and environmental management system 
processes. The Forest Service believes that using technical guides will 
allow more rapid response to these changes; such as, better examples of 
desired conditions, objectives, and associated monitoring programs, 
than could occur if all detailed planning techniques were placed in the 
directives.
National Direction
    Comment: The Forest Service should adopt a system with limited 
national direction for forest planners on complying with national legal 
mandates.
    Response: The 2005 planning rule and the Forest Service directives 
for implementing that rule are intended to provide the necessary 
guidance essential to ensure quality plans are developed without unduly 
limiting local innovation in the process and the plan content.

[[Page 5126]]

Plan Consistency
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide guidance to ensure 
consistency among Forests.
    Response: It is the responsibility of the Regional Foresters (FSM 
1921.04a) to coordinate planning between units in the region and 
between regions where units adjoin. The directives provide a framework 
for developing, revising, and amending plans; while allowing components 
of plans to adapt to local situations.
Project Information
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide complete and accurate 
information about projects. It is unclear how much explanation of 
possible project schedules and locations will occur in the plan.
    Response: Plans are intended to be strategic documents, providing 
limited or no information on schedules and locations of projects. Each 
plan will list proposed and possible actions anticipated to provide an 
array of opportunities or resource management programs (FSH 1909.12, 
sec. 11.2) and a planned timber sale program, including proportion of 
probable harvest methods (FSH 1909.12, sec. 65.4). Project disclosure 
comes at the project planning level.
Cumulative Effects
    Comment: The Forest Service should include requirements for 
cumulative effects analysis in the Forest Service directives.
    Response: Cumulative effects analysis occurs as a part of project-
level planning in accord with NEPA (FSM 1950, FSH 1909.15) rather than 
through forest planning. The comprehensive evaluation report (FSH 
1909.12, sec. 24.2), is intended to help provide context for project-
level cumulative effects analyses. The comprehensive evaluation report 
will be updated at least every 5 years.
Length and Clarity of Directives
    Comment: The Forest Service should shorten the length of the Forest 
Service directives. The sheer length of the directives makes them 
difficult to absorb. However, some respondents thought that the Forest 
Service should acknowledge that all sections of the Forest Service 
directives are incomplete, conceptual, ambiguous, and lack guidance 
about how concepts may be evaluated or applied and thought they should 
be clearer and more consistent.
    Response: The final directives have been reduced approximately 25% 
from the interim directives to improve clarity and remove 
inconsistencies identified by respondents. More guidance on methods 
will be available in technical guides.
Guideline Description
    Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge that the statement 
``Direction that compels us to do action is not appropriate'' (FSH 
1909.12, sec. 12.23b) is an inappropriate statement. Another respondent 
stated that the directives system is not a substitute for plan 
direction (FSH 1909.12, sec. 12.11, para. 3, item 3).
    Response: Although it has been reworded to provide clarity, the 
concept that guidelines should not be written to force action remains 
unchanged. Guidelines are intended to guide implementing actions, not 
cause actions to occur. The description of guidelines has been moved to 
FSH 1909.12, section 11.13 in the final directives.
    The directives system is not a substitute for plan direction. It 
would be redundant to repeat in the plan guidelines or technical design 
specifications what already exists in law, regulation, or agency 
directives. Where appropriate, these are referenced in a plan rather 
than repeated.
Legal Considerations
Litigation
    Comment: The Forest Service should acknowledge that the 2005 
planning rule is being litigated and use of the directives could be 
found invalid.
    Response: The Forest Service recognizes the potential implications 
from ongoing litigation of the 2005 planning rule; however, these 
implications are outside the scope of the directives.
Plan Implementation
    Comment: The Forest Service should include stipulations in the 
Forest Service directives that allow the public to challenge the agency 
in court if it fails to live up to a plan.
    Response: The Forest Service is committed to designing and carrying 
out activities consistent with plans. Administrative procedures are in 
place that allow the public appeal (36 CFR 215) or object (36 CFR 218) 
to certain management actions.
Consistency With NFMA
    Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that the directives are 
in accord with NFMA, including the act's biodiversity requirements.
    Response: The Forest Service believes that the 2005 planning rule, 
and the Forest Service directives for carrying out that rule, are 
consistent with the requirements of NFMA. The Forest and Rangeland 
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), as amended by NFMA, 
calls for plans to provide for diversity of plant and animal 
communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific 
land area (RPA, sec. 6(g)(3)(B)). The 2005 planning rule (36 CFR 
219.10(b)) provides for sustaining ecological systems by maintaining 
ecosystem diversity and species diversity. The Forest Service 
directives provide added guidance in FSM 1921.73 and FSH 1909.12, 
section 43, to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities.
National Trails System Act
    Comment: The Forest Service should specifically list the National 
Trails System Act in the Forest Services directives as an applicable 
law.
    Response: Forest Service Manual 1920.11 identifies statutory 
authorities relevant to planning and references other applicable 
authorities found in FSM 1011, including the National Trails System 
Act.
Forest Planning
Forest Planning Versus Project Planning
    Comment: The directives should acknowledge the increased role for 
project planning and provide guidance about how forest and project 
planning will link together. The interim directive's discussion of plan 
to project evaluation is too generic; for example, when in the process 
would cumulative effects on watershed be evaluated?
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 sets up procedures for 
developing, revising, and amending plans, as needed, to carry out the 
planning rule. The rule at 36 CFR 219.2(c) specifies that not one of 
the requirements of the rule apply to projects except as specifically 
provided. The final directives at FSH 1909.12, section 29, address how 
potential projects are identified and the finding that the project is 
consistent with the plan. Project analysis is discussed in detail in 
FSH 1909.15; agency procedures for compliance with NEPA. These 
directives and Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR 
1500 to 1508 guide the environmental analysis for projects, including 
analysis of cumulative effects. Although the Forest Service expects 
that plan development, revision, and amendment will usually be 
categorically excluded, the comprehensive evaluation report will help 
set the context for project level analysis.

[[Page 5127]]

Need for Change
    Comment: The general premise that plan revisions will address only 
those parts of plans needing change and the premise that the new 
planning regulations and directives provide a new paradigm for planning 
are in conflict. The emphasis should be on a need for change.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, sections 24 and 25, 
outline an adaptive management framework for annual and comprehensive 
evaluations. An important result of these evaluations is to determine 
the need for change in the plan or in monitoring requirements. The 2005 
planning rule significantly improves the process for plan development, 
revision, and amendment so that the attention of the Forest Service and 
the public can focus on only those items that appear to need change. 
The Forest Service does not see this as a conflict in the two premises.
Adaptive Management Practices
    Comment: An adaptive management approach will enable the Forest 
Service to keep up with the best available science and to better 
respond to changing conditions.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees. An adaptive management 
framework is a cornerstone for the 2005 planning rule and the final 
directives.
Mandatory Standards
    Concern: The Forest Service should continue to call for plans to 
contain mandatory, environmentally protective standards. Without 
quantitative, measurable, performance standards the plans will lack 
commitment, because performance cannot be measured or verified. 
Guidelines do not serve this purpose because deviations can be made as 
individual projects are designed. This defeats establishing a certain 
``minimum'' natural resource protection. This makes plans meaningless 
and circumvents the NFMA requirement to adopt plans and carry out 
projects consistent with those plans (16 U.S.C., sec. 1604). This, and 
other attempts to increase leeway for the Forest Service, does not make 
sense given the agency's historical lack of accountability.
    Response: The 2005 planning rule does not include standards as a 
plan component. The preamble to the proposed rule and the response to 
comments for the final rule state the reason for using guidelines. 
Conditions on the ground are variable and the Forest Service believes 
that mandatory standards are too restrictive. Guidelines allow more 
flexibility for making adjustments based on site-specific conditions. 
The guidelines in plans are expected to be measurable. Guidelines 
should be written with inherent latitude and flexibility to carry out 
projects and activities so that adjustment is seldom an issue. However, 
if adjustment of guidelines is necessary, the project analysis and 
decision document must articulate the reasons for adjusting the 
guidelines.
Forest Management Prescription
    Comment: Forest management prescriptions should be used to set 
performance standards and ensure needed protections and desired 
conditions. An example is the Appalachian Trail, which is now has 
specific management prescriptions in eight national forest plans, 
ensuring consistent administration of the trail.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 11.1 
specifically states that plan components may be developed for areas in 
units; usually called management areas or geographic areas. Nothing in 
the final directives prohibits the continued use of management areas; 
as for example, those used by several national forests to provide 
consistent management guidance for the Appalachian Trail. The Forest 
Service believes that plan components; including desired conditions, 
guidelines, and suitability of areas will provide the needed framework 
for providing desired experiences, conditions, and protections.
Plan Amendments
    Comment: The Forest Service should not allow a plan to be amended 
through site-specific project decisions because this discretion would 
be abused, used mainly to make easier commodity development, or would 
evade the rigorous cumulative effects analysis requirements intended by 
NEPA.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 25.4 and 35 CFR 
219.8(e) provide that the plan can be amended through approval of a 
project or activity. This type of amendment would be considered along 
with considering whether the project should be modified or rejected 
entirely if the Responsible Official decides the project is not 
consistent with the plan. Conditions on the land are highly variable 
and the provision for amendments through projects is an important 
aspect making plans adaptable and workable. Documentation of the reason 
for the plan amendment would be included with the project 
documentation. Amendments through projects may be considered for a 
variety of projects, not just those that would produce commodities. 
NEPA compliance at project level is unchanged.
Management and Geographic Areas
    Comment: The Forest Service should not call for plans to contain 
management and geographic areas.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 11.1 does not 
call for management and geographic areas. It is permissive in that a 
unit could use one, both, or neither.
Minimum Components
    Comment: The Forest Service should ensure that plans identify the 
minimum components and commitments needed to manage multiple uses on a 
sustainable basis and to maintain ecological integrity of forest lands. 
Forest Service Manual 1921.11 states that plan components should be 
realistic and achievable, reflecting the unit's anticipated budget, 
staffing and technical capability. Budget levels should not dictate 
whether an adequate plan is prepared to reach missions and objectives.
    Response: Plans must provide for biological diversity and address 
the ecological, economic, and social parts of sustainability as 
required by the 2005 planning rule (36 CFR 219.10 and FSH 1909.12, ch. 
40). Past plans have included desired conditions and objectives that 
could not be reached. Having unrealistic plan components does not 
enhance sustainability, but does cause considerable frustration and the 
feeling that promises were broken. The Forest Service believes that the 
provisions of FSM 1921.11 are important and will lead to a much clearer 
focus on setting priorities for plan implementation. These plan 
components can always be adjusted if more resources become available.
National Strategic Plan
    Comment: The Forest Service should establish a national framework 
of goals and objectives in its Strategic Plan designed around key 
outputs mandated through Congressional direction. Lack of a consistent 
framework may cause confusion and lead to many different frameworks for 
developing land management plans. There is an inherent tension between 
providing consistency between plans and providing flexibility in the 
plans to address circumstances that are unique to individual forests.
    Response: The Forest Service's National Strategic Plan sets up 
goals, objectives, performance measures, and strategies for management 
of the NFS mission areas (36 CFR 219.2(a)). Specific performance 
measures are identified. The Strategic Plan

[[Page 5128]]

establishes a national vision, based on the Resource Planning Act 
assessment and the 127 land management plans for forests, grasslands, 
and prairies (FSM 1906.11(b)). The Regional Foresters are required to 
ensure use of the Forest Service National Strategic Plan as a context 
for developing or refining desired conditions (FSM 1921.04(a)). The 
Forest Service agrees that there should be a link between unit plans 
and the National Strategic Plan. This link is addressed in the 
directives. The link works both ways, with the unit plans considering 
national goals and objectives and the National Strategic Plan 
considering the plans of each unit.
Plan Set of Documents
    Comment: The Forest Service should include in the plan set of 
documents any material that may have been used to formulate the 
management plan.
    Response: The plan set of documents details that were in FSH 
1909.12, chapter 50 have been removed from the directives and placed in 
a technical guide on the Technical Information for Planning Site (TIPS) 
Web site at https://www.fs.fed.us/TIPS. The Forest Service believes that 
detailed guidance and procedures for the plan set of documents and the 
planning record are more appropriate for a technical guide. The 
description of the plan set of documents is in the planning rule at 36 
CFR 219.7(a)(1). The plan set of documents is not limited to only those 
things listed in the rule. The Forest Service believes the documents 
included should be clearly relevant to plan development and components 
and should be limited to final documents.
Options
    Comment: There is no guarantee that the Forest Service will 
consider options. Not considering options may be illegal.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 25.32 discusses 
considering options to proposed changes in plan components. Options may 
not be required for some proposed changes that are limited in scope or 
if there are no choices to the proposal, such as amendments needed to 
put into effect conservation strategies for federally-listed threatened 
or endangered species. Options can be used as a valuable part of the 
collaborative approach to plan amendment, revision, or development. 
Options would be developed with public input and would look at a range 
of potential plan components. Options would not be needed for those 
components of a proposed plan where the public is in agreement with the 
proposal. The Forest Service believes that this iterative and 
collaborative approach will be useful, but should be used only where 
feasible options are available. There are no legal requirements that 
would mandate options be considered every time the plan is changed.
Legal Problems
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider legal problems that 
will arise from a planning process that is too casual, especially if 
the directives are not binding.
    Response: The planning rule and directives establish a planning 
process and provides a framework that complies with NFMA. As 
Responsible Officials develop, revise, or amend plans they are 
constrained and guided by a large body of law, regulation, and policy, 
as well as, public participation and oversight to ensure full legal 
compliance.
Multilevel Planning
    Comment: The directives description of multilevel planning is 
inconsistent with the planning rule. The rule is for plan development 
only and discussion of considering cumulative effects from projects is 
not appropriate.
    Response: The description of the Forest Service planning process 
has been moved to FSM 1906. Reference to cumulative effects from 
projects during the comprehensive evaluations has been deleted, 
although the Forest Service does believe that comprehensive evaluations 
should use available data from several sources and some information 
developed during project development and implementation will be useful.
Supreme Court Decisions
    Comment: The Forest Service should not try to extend the Supreme 
Court decisions in Ohio Forestry and Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness 
Association (SUWA) to forest planning. The questions addressed in these 
cases do not address the questions of the 2005 planning rule and 
directives about whether and environmental assessment (EA) or an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for preparation of a 
programmatic plan.
    Response: The explanation for this approach to compliance with NEPA 
is discussed in detail in the preamble to the final 2005 planning rule 
(70 FR 1034, Jan. 5, 2005). Many factors, besides the Supreme Court 
decisions cited, led to the approach in the final rule and directives.
Desired Conditions
    Comment: The directives should give added guidance on how to 
describe and select desired conditions from an ecological standpoint. 
Historical conditions or range of variability may not be a suitable 
guide. The directives should include how climatic, cultural and 
historical changes have and will influence desired conditions.
    Response: A technical guide will be available on the Technical 
Information for Planning Site (TIPS) Web site at https://www.fs.fed.us/
TIPS. The range of variation under historic disturbance regimes is an 
important context; however, additional direction on how to develop 
desired conditions is found in FSH 1909.12, chapter 40.
    Comment: Desired conditions should have an expanded role as a key 
plan component.
    Response: Plan components are discussed in FSH 1909.12, section 11. 
The Forest Service agrees that desired conditions are a key plan 
component. Other components such as objectives, guidelines, and 
suitable uses must be developed consistent with moving toward or 
maintaining desired conditions.
    Comment: The Forest Service should have an appropriate focus of 
desired conditions, whether on ecological, social or economic elements. 
Desired conditions should focus on vegetation conditions with general 
statements on the contribution to a range of recreation uses and 
contributions to economies through commodity production. Desired 
conditions should include considerable detail on social and economic 
elements, such as sense of remoteness, cultural heritage, and how 
ecosystem management will address human-related issues.
    Response: Desired conditions describe ecological, social, and 
economic attributes and should be integrated to consider the needs of 
all relevant resources, ongoing activities, and natural processes (FSH 
1909.12, sec. 11.11). The statements of desired conditions will vary 
considerably from unit to unit based on conditions and public wants. 
Some statements of desired conditions may focus more on vegetation 
conditions while others focus on social and economic conditions and 
contributions. It would be inappropriate for the directives to 
prescribe an emphasis that would be used on every unit.
Realistic Objectives
    Comment: The Forest Service should develop realistic desired 
conditions that can be maintained under expected budgets besides 
developing realistic objectives for the plan period. Desired conditions 
should be changed to produce more revenue if adequate

[[Page 5129]]

funding is not received to maintain desired conditions.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees that all plan components should 
be realistic and achievable. They should show the unit's anticipated 
budget levels, staffing, and capability for the plan period (FSM 
1921.11). Through annual and comprehensive evaluations during plan 
implementation, the Forest Service may identify the need to adjust plan 
components that appear to be unrealistic. Adjustments in plan 
components would not always produce more revenue for plan 
implementation, as annual budgets are largely dependent on 
Congressional appropriations.
Monitoring
    Comment: The Forest Service should use monitoring as a tool to 
identify information that may improve land productivity or provide 
alternative means of meeting desired conditions.
    Response: The Forest Service believes that the primary purpose of 
monitoring is to find out whether plan implementation is reaching plan 
objectives and desired conditions. The Forest Service agrees that 
monitoring the effects of management activities on the productivity of 
the land is important. Monitoring may trigger the need to look for 
alternative means of meeting the desired conditions.
Measurable, Quantitative Criteria
    Comment: To be a legitimate plan, it must include measurable, 
quantitative criteria for goals and objectives, including desired 
conditions, and make an affirmative commitment to reaching those 
results. Desired conditions are the foundation of a plan. A document 
lacking affirmative commitments to reaching goals, desired conditions, 
and objectives is not a plan.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees that desired conditions and 
objectives should be measurable. If monitoring and plan evaluation 
identify that desired conditions cannot be reached, the plan should be 
amended or revised (FSH 1909.12, sec. 11.11). The Forest Service 
intends to carry out projects and activities to maintain or make 
progress toward desired conditions and objectives. However, because 
there is uncertainty, the Forest Service believes plans are 
aspirational.
Role of Responsible Official
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify who is the Responsible 
Official.
    Response: ``Responsible Official'' is defined in the definitions 
section of the planning rule (36 CFR 219.16). The Responsible Official 
is the official with the authority and responsibility to oversee the 
planning process and to approve plans, plan amendments, and plan 
revisions. The Responsible Official for plan development, revision, and 
amendment is the forest, grassland, or prairie supervisor (FSM 
1921.04(b)).
    Comment: The Responsible Official should be given more flexibility 
to respond to scientific advancements and threats from invasive 
species, disease, or wildfire. Another respondent was concerned that 
Responsible Officials have too much discretion and that the directives 
should include safeguards against abuse.
    Response: The Forest Service believes that the authority and 
discretion for plan amendment, revision, and development provided by 
the 2005 planning rule and the directives is appropriate. The planning 
process is greatly streamlined, specifically with the intent of 
improving Forest Service capability to adapt to changing conditions and 
new information. Although there is greater discretion, the decisions of 
the Responsible Official are constrained and guided by a large body of 
law, regulation, and policy, as well as public and agency participation 
and oversight.
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify the discretion of the 
Responsible Official to set the scope and applicability for project 
decision amendments so that every time a project was inconsistent with 
the plan, the Responsible Official would not be able to amend the plan 
to allow that project to go ahead; making the plan meaningless.
    Response: The discussion of amendments through project decisions is 
now set out at FSH 1909.12, section 25.4. The Forest Service has 
clarified that the Responsible Official may limit the scope and 
applicability of the plan amendment to apply only to the project or 
activity area. It is important to understand that these amendments 
would not exempt the project or activity from plan compliance, but 
would adjust plan components in response to more site-specific 
information gained through the project analysis. There is no way to 
find out in advance how often the option of amending a plan will be 
used; however, the directives advise that plans should be monitored to 
identify if there is a need for change over all or part of the plan 
area.
Role of Science in Planning
    Comment: The Forest Service should require the use of the best 
available science in forest planning. The role of science must not be 
diminished to just ``one aspect of decisionmaking,'' an aspect 
superseded by ``competing use demands,'' for example.
    Response: In FSM 1921.81, the Forest Service describes the steps 
required to ensure that the best available science is taken into 
account. In FSH 1909.12, section 41.1 direction was added about the 
scope, timing, and other aspects of a review. Forest Service Handbook 
1909.12, section 41.22, table 3, lays out the many steps in developing 
a plan and suggests appropriate reviews for each step.
Wildlife Conservation
    Comment: Science needs to be a major factor; monitoring and 
regulations need to be in place to keep a natural balance and conserve 
our wildlife, endangered species and their important habitats.
    Response: The Forest Service concurs that science is a major factor 
in decisionmaking. As written, the directives tie monitoring and 
science together.
Identification of Best Available Science
    Comment: The evaluation and determination of what science 
constitutes the best available science should be conducted by people 
with the appropriate scientific knowledge and background.
    Response: In response to comments, direction has been added to FSH 
1909.12, section 41.23 that describes the qualifications of the 
reviewers. Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 41.1 provides more 
direction.
Consistency in the Use of Science
    Comment: The Forest Service should be consistent in its use of 
science. Under the directives, some forests will have plans based on 
top-notch scientific review, others will not.
    Response: To ensure consistency and quality, FSM 1921.8 and FSH 
1909.12, section 41 provide direction on how to take into account 
science. FSH 1909.12, section 41 emphasizes that the level of review 
must be commensurate with the controversy, uncertainty, or risk 
associated with the planning activity. To always require a type or 
scale of review means the same review would be done on all planning 
efforts regardless of the complexity or scope. The Responsible Official 
needs the flexibility to conduct a review that is appropriate to the 
issue being reviewed.
Definition of Best Available Science
    Comment: The Forest Service should require the Responsible Official 
to define the ``best available science.'' How will this be done? Again, 
the directives contain no direction for the responsible officials.

[[Page 5130]]

    Response: Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1921.85 states, ``the 
Responsible Official shall conduct timely and substantive reviews of 
the science applied during the planning process.'' Best available 
science cannot be described in a directive, but can be taken into 
account by using appropriate procedures. A four-step discovery process 
for best available science, modified in the final directives, is 
described in FSM 1921.81. When the four-step process is followed and an 
appropriate review is conducted the best available science should be 
taken into account and properly influence plan components. Forest 
Service Handbook 1909.12, section 41.23 requires that reviewers be 
independent of the plan development and implementation process.
Responsible Official Discretion
    Comment: The Forest Service should limit how cost influences the 
appropriate science determinations that are left to the Responsible 
Official.
    Response: The Forest Service believes that the direction found in 
FSM 1921.8 and FSH 1909.12, section 41 provides enough direction to 
Responsible Officials regarding the role of science and properly 
directs the Responsible Official to consider cost in assessing how to 
best apply science in the planning effort. The Responsible Official is 
required to disclose how best available science was taken into account.
Scientific Data From Citizen Groups
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider scientifically sound 
data provided by citizen groups. Citizen groups frequently contribute 
scientifically sound data and analysis that counters and balances the 
often pro-resource harvesting plans promoted by Forest Service 
employees.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees that citizen groups need to 
have meaningful participation in the planning process. The input of 
citizens can influence the application of science. The methods for 
gathering and considering citizen input are addressed in the directives 
under collaboration (FSM 1921.6 and FSH 1909.12, sec. 30).
Define ``Other Appropriate Means''
    Comment: The Forest Service should define the phrase ``other 
appropriate means'' as used in the Forest Service directives to 
describe how the Responsible Official documents that science was 
appropriately interpreted and applied in the planning process.
    Response: The final directives identify four levels of review and 
address when and how to use them in FSH 1909.12, section 41.
Use of Systematic Evidence Review
    Comment: The Forest Service should consider a system of gathering 
and synthesizing scientific information that is similar to the 
``Systematic Evidence Review,'' a system used by the medical profession 
to gather information for clinical practice guidelines.
    Response: The Forest Service believes that the method described in 
FSM 1921.81 represents the state-of-the-art for science review for 
natural resource management, (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 
Service. 2003. Science Consistency Reviews: A Primer for Application. 
FS-771. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 
9 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. The Science 
Consistency Review: A Tool to Evaluate the Use of Scientific 
Information in Land Management Decisionmaking. FS-772. Washington, DC: 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 32 p.).
Public Participation and Collaboration
Public Input
    Comment: The Forest Service should provide more opportunity for 
public input to the planning process to decrease litigation, make the 
process more democratic, comply with NFMA, ensure resource protection, 
ensure an appropriate range of alternatives, and determine the extent 
of plan revisions.
    Response: Public participation in land management planning is 
required under NFMA (16 U.S.C. 1604(d)) and the Forest Service will 
continue to fulfill its obligations to involve the public in meaningful 
ways. The NFMA stresses public review of plans and revisions while 
allowing other participation. The Forest Service believes the agency 
directives are a better reflection of public and agency interest in an 
open process that includes collaborative ways of working together 
rather than methods that are more formal. Not everyone wants to 
participate or provide input the same way. The Forest Service believes 
Responsible Officials should have the discretion to design processes 
that meet participant and agency needs and; as appropriate, go beyond 
public review and public meetings. The directives (FSH 1909.12, sec. 
31.4) provide Responsible Officials with the discretion to select the 
most current and suitable activities for meeting requirements; yet, 
they require those officials to involve the public in specific planning 
activities, including evaluating whether need for changing the plan 
exists, setting up the basis for that need, developing plan components, 
designing the monitoring program, and conducting regular comprehensive 
evaluations. These expectations go beyond land management planning and 
into the activities of public land management.
Public Scrutiny of Plan Documents
    Comment: The interim directives left open the possibility that 
public scrutiny of some plan documents might not occur, specifically 
referring to public involvement and scrutiny of management review 
documents and annual monitoring reports.
    Response: Responsible Officials should make publicly available 
information developed as part of the planning process (FSM 1921.65). 
Legal considerations, such as the Privacy Act or the FOIA, can impose 
limits on certain disclosures affected by those considerations. The 
section in the interim directives about management review has been 
removed. The directives, FSH 1909.12, section 31.5, now clarify the 
expectation that public participation will occur in identifying the 
need for change. Also, Responsible Officials have the discretion to 
involve interested and willing members of the public in agency work, 
including the work of annual monitoring. The Forest Service's long 
history of working with the public to do the work of responsible and 
adaptive public land management will continue.
Roles of Line Officers
    Comment: The interim directives referred to line officers playing a 
variety of roles (FSM 1921.61 in the ID) during a collaborative process 
and it was unclear whether this referred just to roles or to some 
implied detail of the intended public participation process.
    Response: The past reference has been removed because it did not 
provide direction to agency officials and was, therefore, confusing to 
readers.
Decision Responsibility
    Comment: The interim directives were unclear about whether the 
agency has ultimate responsibility for planning decisions, specifically 
referring to interim direction about shared leadership as a goal of 
public participation and collaboration.
    Response: In NFMA, Congress has charged the Forest Service with the 
responsibility and authority to manage lands in agency jurisdiction and 
has made the agency solely accountable for the results of that 
management. Even so, the agency is committed to exercising its 
responsibility with the help of willing and interested individuals, 
groups,

[[Page 5131]]

tribes, state and local governments, agencies, and other partners. The 
Forest Service agrees that the phrase shared leadership was unclear. 
The goal is to build better plans using principles that increase our 
ability to put into effect, evaluate, and adapt those plans by working 
with others who are willing to participate.
Responding to Specific Public Comments
    Comment: Agency responses to public comments should address every 
comment individually, rather than by grouping similar comments, because 
salient points are often missed when grouping occurs.
    Response: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, section 25.34 addresses 
agency response to public comments. The Forest Service believes that 
the directives provide Responsible Officials with appropriate 
discretion to respond to individual comments when salient points merit 
such a response while responding to groupings of similar comments when 
a common salient point is evident. The emphasis is on concise responses 
to salient points that substantively improve the land management plan 
components or that differ from or support the Responsible Official's 
reason for approving the plan.
Collaboration Aspirations
    Comment: The interim direction about collaboration contained vague 
and poorly defined aspirations that may negatively affect agency 
aspirations for collaboration, in part by stressing a bureaucratically 
centered approach to collaboration.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees that the directives are not the 
only mechanism by which the agency will realize its goal of 
collaborative public land management and that aspirations, while 
needed, are not enough. The directives set up the goal of building 
better plans using public participation and collaboration activities; 
clarify the Responsible Official's discretion about timing and methods 
of those activities; and set up agency policy for public participation 
in land management planning. The principles the agency will follow when 
meeting this goal include building and maintaining working 
relationships, trust, and collaborative capacity; encouraging a shared 
understanding of values, concerns, roles, and the responsibilities of 
all participants; and other principles found in FSH 1909.12, section 
31.2. The Forest Service believes that this goal and these principles 
are an important part of realizing the agency's goal of collaborative 
public land management.
Define Collaborative Process
    Comment: A clearly defined collaborative process is needed to 
ensure uniformity, consistency, and enforceable standards. Some 
respondents commented that Forest Supervisors could go ahead 
unilaterally and not involve the public at key points. Others commented 
that a measure of effectiveness is needed and that consultation with 
social scientists should occur when developing that measure. Lastly, a 
respondent commented that the term ``vision'' and the phrase ``strategy 
development'' need definition for public participation and 
collaboration.
    Response: The Forest Service believes that the goal of 
collaborative public land management is best served by defining 
principles of public participation and collaboration; defining the plan 
components and planning activities that public participation and 
collaboration must address; and providing Responsible Officials with 
the discretion to tailor timing and methods to meet those mandates. The 
Forest Service believes that a uniform and consistent process is 
inappropriate for collaborative public land management because such a 
process is autocratic and therefore, is not collaborative. Such a 
process would not allow participants to help tailor the process to meet 
their needs and agency mandates. Yet, the directives establish that 
Responsible Officials, most often Forest Supervisors, must involve the 
public in specific planning activities; including, identifying whether 
any need to change the plan exists, developing plan components, 
designing of the plan monitoring program, and updating of comprehensive 
evaluations. At times, a series of public meetings may be appropriate. 
At other times, other methods will be appropriate. Evidence of 
responsiveness to the established principles should show the 
effectiveness of the timing and methods chosen by the Responsible 
Official. The Forest Service agrees that the term ``vision'' and the 
phrase ``strategy development'' were unclear and has removed those 
terms from the FSH 1909.12, chapter 30 regarding public participation 
and collaboration.
Keeping Interested Participants Involved
    Comment: The directives on public participation and collaboration 
need clearer direction about how to keep interested participants 
involved and not disenfranchised.
    Response: The Forest Service agrees that keeping interested 
participants engaged in the planning process is crucial to a successful 
plan. The Forest Service believes the principles established in FSH 
1909.12, chapter 30, reaffirm keeping interested participants involved 
by building, earning, and maintaining the working relationships, trust, 
and collaborative capacity. The agency will work with partners to 
disseminate existing techniques for accomplishing this goal and will 
develop more materials as needed.
Separate Topics
    Comment: Separation of the topics of public participation and 
collaboration is needed because public participation is mandated by law 
or regulation, while collaboration is not, and collaboration is a 
subset of public participation.
    Response: The Forest Service must use a collaborative and 
participatory planning process to comply with NFMA and its implementing 
regulations in 36 CFR part 219. The Forest Service believes that 
collaborative activities are an important form of public participation 
during planning efforts and believes that collaborative activities 
extend beyond planning efforts. By treating these topics together, the 
Forest Service believes that better plans will result.
Consider Landowner Desires
    Comment: The Forest Service should require Responsible Officials to 
consider landowner desires when setting up plan components because 
discretionary guidance is inconsistent with other references to 
collaboration.
    Response: In agency direction, the verb ``should'' requires 
compliance except for justifiable reasons (FSM 1110). The Forest 
Service regulations require Responsible Officials to involve the public 
in developing plan components (36 CFR 219.9). The directives require 
Responsible Officials to strive to identify and notify potentially 
interested individuals, including landowners, and provide opportunities 
to engage in setting up plan components (FSM 1921.62). The directives 
also require Responsible Officials to involve the public in setting up 
plan components (FSH 1909.12, sec. 31.5). The Forest Service believes 
this direction requires consideration of landowner desires as part of 
the participatory and collaborative process of identifying desired 
social, ecological, and economic conditions.
Notification
    Comment: The Forest Service should publish all plan amendments in 
the Federal Register.

[[Page 5132]]

    Response: Public notification procedures for plan amendments are 
specified in the 2005 planning rule, 36 CFR 219.9(b)(2), and are not 
modified by the planning directives.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
    Comment: The Forest Service should continue to do EISs including 
developing alternatives for planning.
    Response: The Forest Service has 25 years of experience developing, 
amending, and revising plans under the requirements of NEPA. Based on 
that experience, and the recognition by the Supreme Court in Ohio 
Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club and Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness 
Alliance about plans themselves, the Forest Service believes that land 
management plans, plan revisions, or plan amendments developed under 
the 2005 planning rule, and that do not approve projects or activities, 
do not individually or cumulatively result in significant effects on 
the human environment. For these reasons, the Forest Service believes 
that continuing the practice of developing EISs for plans is not 
needed.
Public Participation
    Comment: Public participation opportunities should be provided 
consistent with the requirements of NEPA.
    Response: The intent of the 2005 planning rule and the Forest 
Service directives is that public participation in the planning process 
be open and meaningful. The Forest Service believes that calling for 
frequent and collaborative public involvement in the planning process 
(FSM 1921.61, FSH 1909.12, sec. 30) will allow the views and values of 
the public to be better shown in plans than has historically occurred 
following the public involvement procedures specified by NEPA.
Cumulative Effects
    Comment: Planning should give citizens information about the 
cumulative effects of various forest uses.
    Response: The comprehensive evaluation report (CER) (FSM 1921.2, 
FSH 1090.12, sec. 24.2), while not considered a cumulative effects 
analysis, is intended to provide context for understanding the effects 
of various forest uses and activities. Because the CER is to be updated 
at least every 5 years its value in providing this context should be 
retained. Cumulative effects will be reviewed and disclosed during NEPA 
compliance at the project level.
Options Proposed by the Public
    Comment: Forest Supervisors should be required to consider plan 
options that conservationists and others propose.
    Response: Plan components, including options for plan components, 
are required to be developed with public input and input from other 
agencies (FSH 1909.12, sec. 25.32b).
Categorical Exclusion (CE)
    Comment: The Forest Service should not categorically exclude (CE) 
plans from NEPA requirements or allow the exclusion of public 
participation in the planning process.
    Response: Under the Council on Environmental Quality procedures for 
carrying out NEPA, categorical exclusion of a proposed action from 
documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or 
environmental assessment (EA) is one way of complying with NEPA 
requirements (40 CFR 1500.4(p), 1501.4(a), 1508.4). The Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations specifically authorize Federal 
agencies (40 CFR 1507.3(b)) to identify classes of actions that 
normally do not call for either an EIS or an EA. The Forest Service 
believes that adoption of a plan falls into this class of actions 
because it does not result in specific on-the-ground action; and 
therefore, does not result in effects that can be analyzed (40 CFR 
1508.23). The 2005 planning rule and Forest Service directives make 
open and meaningful public participation a central land management 
planning responsibility of the Responsible Official (FSH 1909.12, sec. 
30). The Forest Service requested public comment on the proposal 
planning CE by notice in the Federal Register on January 5, 2005. The 
comment period closed on March 7, 2005.
Scientific Input
    Comment: Amending and revising plans using CEs would unfairly and 
unwisely restrict scientists from providing important feedback to the 
government about natural resources.
    Response: The public involvement processes under the 2005 planning 
rule and Forest Service directives are intended to involve all 
interested members of the public, along with other agencies, states and 
tribes.
Project Analysis
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify whether either an EIS or 
EA will be needed for each project.
    Response: Any proposed action carrying out a plan developed under 
the 2005 planning rule (70 CFR part 1039) will be subject to Forest 
Service NEPA procedures at the time of the project decision, except in 
those rare instances when a project decision is made in a plan and that 
decision is supported by an EIS or EA assessment. Determination of the 
type of NEPA analysis and documentation will be made using Forest 
Service procedures found in FSM 1950 and FSH 1909.15 based on the 
characteristics of the individual actions proposed.
NEPA Compliance for Directives
    Comment: The Forest Service should develop permanent planning 
directives through a process that complies with NEPA.
    Response: The Forest Service directives have been developed in 
compliance with NEPA procedures. Forest Service NEPA procedures (FSH 
1909.15, sec. 31.12, category 2), which were developed in consultation 
with the Council on Environmental Quality pursuant to Title 40, Code of 
Federal Regulations, Part 1507.3--Protection of the Environment, 
Council on Environmental Quality, Agency procedures, allow Service-wide 
policies to be categorically excluded from documentation in an EIS or 
EA. Developing Forest Service directives fits that category.
NEPA Handbook
    Comment: The Forest Service should delete all references to NEPA in 
favor of directing planners to the NEPA handbook for the specifics of 
NEPA compliance.
    Response: This change has been made in the final directives.
Adaptive Management Process
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify the stages at which the 
adaptive management process undergoes NEPA compliance.
    Response: NEPA analysis occurs at the project level.
NEPA Application
    Comment: The Forest Service should clarify whether FSM 1922 applies 
NEPA at the Forest planning level or the local project level for land 
management planning using planning regulations before November 9, 2000.
    Response: Forest Service Manual 1926.04b clarifies that planning 
under the regulations in effect before November 9, 2000, calls for 
compliance with NEPA procedures found in FSH 1909.15. Forest Service 
Handbook 1909.15 identifies the NEPA requirements for project 
decisions.

[[Page 5133]]

Project EISs
    Comment: The Forest Service should call for EISs for individual 
projects and not for land management plans.
    Response: The intent of the 2005 planning rule and Forest Service 
directives is to use EISs for plans only when the plan decision 
includes projects otherwise needing an EIS. Individual projects will 
include NEPA documentation consistent with the requirements of FSH 
1909.15. The documentation (EIS, EA, or CE) will depend on the specific 
proposal.
NEPA Compliance and Public Participation
    Comment: The NFMA requires the Forest Service to meet NEPA 
requirements for public participation and that those requirements 
include an iterative process of developing alternatives, soliciting and 
responding to public comments, and consideration of proposals from non-
agency sources.
    Response: NFMA di